If you thought the term "You" specifically meant the person posting the article, which hasn't been active in this comment section at all, you absolutely need to get better at reading comprehension. There is the term the royal we, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we. Royal us, Royal I, and Royal You all exist because of it. You in that place means the Australian government. No one else here has made this mistake and no one else is speaking like I accused OP or the modern Australian people of actively stealing land.
Did you not see the parenthetical I put in that sentence? It specifically covers all of this. You wasted a paragraph complaining about something that was already addressed, and then completely ignored the actual question that is relevant.
I'll repeat it, in a simpler and more general form so you can hopefully understand it better. How old are the people you're accusing of being land thieves?
The original people who stole the land are dead. Age is irrelevant to that discussion. People who benefit from the crimes of the past are still alive. Since it was racially motivated and successful, we've seen a lot of attempts in many countries to try to repair this damage to the culture.
So when you said "the land you stole" you were talking about dead people, not about anyone who is alive. There are no identifiable "thieves" any more.
The sins of the fathers should not be laid on their children. Helping people alive today who are disadvantaged is a fine goal, but trying to divvy those groups up on the basis of ethnicity or ancestry is simply repeating the original problem. You can ban discrimination, provide social programs, promote cultural enrichment and exchange, improve living conditions and economic opportunities for poor communities, without ever once having to make decisions on the basis of who's grandfathers belonged to which families and have what genetic profiles.
This is not "supporting systemic racism." It's the opposite.
The sins of the fathers should not be laid on their children. Helping people alive today who are disadvantaged is a fine goal
We have built an entire system based on the majority race and culture of the people who have stolen the land. That system is the systemic racism that is talked about. Giving a voice to that culture that has been taken from seems like a way to undo that systemic racism. To help understand where we've built racism systemically into our system.
trying to divvy those groups up on the basis of ethnicity or ancestry is simply repeating the original problem.
It is not at all. This is only true if you believe giving a voice is equal to giving over full control of the government. It's not the case at all.
ever once having to make decisions on the basis of who’s grandfathers belonged to which families and have what genetic profiles.
Technically this is a culture of tribes rather than genetic profiles. So the entire committee could have been entirely white folks who were picked by the tribes to represent their culture. Has nothing to do with race or genetics. Assuming it did is like assuming Australians are all white.
If you thought the term "You" specifically meant the person posting the article, which hasn't been active in this comment section at all, you absolutely need to get better at reading comprehension. There is the term the royal we, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we. Royal us, Royal I, and Royal You all exist because of it. You in that place means the Australian government. No one else here has made this mistake and no one else is speaking like I accused OP or the modern Australian people of actively stealing land.
Did you not see the parenthetical I put in that sentence? It specifically covers all of this. You wasted a paragraph complaining about something that was already addressed, and then completely ignored the actual question that is relevant.
I'll repeat it, in a simpler and more general form so you can hopefully understand it better. How old are the people you're accusing of being land thieves?
The original people who stole the land are dead. Age is irrelevant to that discussion. People who benefit from the crimes of the past are still alive. Since it was racially motivated and successful, we've seen a lot of attempts in many countries to try to repair this damage to the culture.
So when you said "the land you stole" you were talking about dead people, not about anyone who is alive. There are no identifiable "thieves" any more.
The sins of the fathers should not be laid on their children. Helping people alive today who are disadvantaged is a fine goal, but trying to divvy those groups up on the basis of ethnicity or ancestry is simply repeating the original problem. You can ban discrimination, provide social programs, promote cultural enrichment and exchange, improve living conditions and economic opportunities for poor communities, without ever once having to make decisions on the basis of who's grandfathers belonged to which families and have what genetic profiles.
This is not "supporting systemic racism." It's the opposite.
We have built an entire system based on the majority race and culture of the people who have stolen the land. That system is the systemic racism that is talked about. Giving a voice to that culture that has been taken from seems like a way to undo that systemic racism. To help understand where we've built racism systemically into our system.
It is not at all. This is only true if you believe giving a voice is equal to giving over full control of the government. It's not the case at all.
Technically this is a culture of tribes rather than genetic profiles. So the entire committee could have been entirely white folks who were picked by the tribes to represent their culture. Has nothing to do with race or genetics. Assuming it did is like assuming Australians are all white.